334 F. Supp. 3d 697
D. Maryland2018Background
- Plaintiffs (businesses and trade associations that use the H-2B program) challenged DHS and DOL regulations governing H-2B temporary non‑agricultural worker admissions, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the 2015 Program Rules (20 C.F.R. § 655), 2015 Wage Rule (20 C.F.R. § 655), 2015 Enforcement Rules (29 C.F.R. § 503), and certain 2008 DHS labor‑certification regulations (8 C.F.R. §§ 214.1, 214.2).
- Core legal contention: DHS (statutorily charged with administering H‑2B admissions) impermissibly redelegated substantive rulemaking and final decision authority to DOL by conditioning H‑2B petitions on DOL’s favorable temporary labor certification and by issuing joint DHS/DOL rules.
- Procedural posture: Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (2016); parties filed cross‑motions for summary judgment; court heard argument and later denied plaintiffs’ motion and granted defendants’ motion.
- The government defended the joint rulemaking as within DHS’s authority to consult with and, in some parts, delegate enforcement to DOL, pointing to (i) long historical participation by DOL in H‑2B labor‑certification rulemaking and (ii) specific statutory provisions allowing DHS to consult and to delegate certain enforcement functions to DOL.
- Court’s threshold rulings: plaintiffs’ facial challenge to the 2008 DHS labor‑certification regulation is time‑barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a); on the merits, the court upheld the 2008 regulations and the 2015 jointly issued rules as permissible in light of statutory text, historical practice, and circuit precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether challenge to 2008 DHS labor‑certification regs is timely | 2008 rule facially invalid; challenge may proceed despite passage of >6 years | Challenge is barred by six‑year statute; any reopening did not occur | Time‑barred; 2008 challenge dismissed on limitations grounds |
| Whether DHS unlawfully abdicated/adversely subdelegated H‑2B adjudicatory authority by conditioning petitions on DOL labor certifications | DHS has sole rulemaking/adjudicative authority; conditioning gives DOL final say—an impermissible subdelegation | 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(1) permits DHS to consult; long practice and statutory context support conditioning on DOL certification | Court adopts Third Circuit view: conditioning on DOL certification is a reasonable exercise of DHS’s authority; not an unlawful subdelegation |
| Whether DOL may engage in legislative rulemaking for H‑2B program | Plaintiffs: Congress granted DHS exclusive rulemaking; DOL lacks express statutory rulemaking authority | Defendants: historical practice, congressional acquiescence, and necessity support DOL role; some enforcement authority is explicitly delegable | Court upholds DOL’s role based on decades of rulemaking history, congressional acquiescence, and persuasive circuit precedent |
| Whether jointly‑issued DHS/DOL 2015 Rules are invalid because DOL lacks authority or because notice/comment defects exist | Joint issuance cannot cure lack of statutory authority; APA notice issues also asserted | Joint rulemaking is lawful; agencies cited sufficient statutory bases and relied on good‑cause exceptions where justified | Court finds agencies adequately cited authority, joint rules permissible, and 2015 Rules lawful; plaintiffs’ summary judgment denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bayou Lawn & Landscape Servs. v. Johnson, 173 F. Supp. 3d 1271 (N.D. Fla. 2016) (district court upheld the 2015 Rules on the merits)
- Louisiana Forestry Ass'n, Inc. v. Sec'y U.S. Dep't of Labor, 745 F.3d 653 (3d Cir. 2014) (upheld DOL's H‑2B rulemaking and endorsed conditioning petitions on DOL certifications)
- CATA v. Perez, 774 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2014) (addressed DOL wage methodology and interplay of prior rules)
- Daniels v. Perez, [citation="626 F. App'x 205"] (10th Cir. 2015) (unpublished appellate decision finding an impermissible subdelegation in a related H‑2B context)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for deference to reasonable agency statutory interpretation)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard for agency rulemaking)